6 ms·

I don't use LLMs to filter out participants and I expect candidates not to use LLMs to cheat.

nottorp 1y ago
Then you can't compete with other recruiters who do. "AI" will take your job!
hopelite 1y ago
Have you tried putting yourself in the perspective of the humans trying to find a job in a market that is turning over now and was already dystopian before AI was injected into a dystopian, hellish process of “putting on a tie and using a firm handshake” to apply into the void.
- gwd 1y ago
  This is so stupid. One of the main reasons it's become a dystopian, hellish process is because people cheat; proliferating cheating will make it even worse. Lying and cheating on a job interview isn't a victimless crime. You're harming the company and all your coworkers when they hire you into a job you're not qualified for; you're harming all the other actually qualified candidates that didn't get hired instead; you're harming yourself, when your salary comes from a company who rely on you to give something you can't give them.
  - Nextgrid 1y ago
    > they hire you into a job you're not qualified for Interviewing has long been disconnected from the actual job. > who rely on you to give something you can't give them. That's what firing is for.
    - gwd 1y ago
      > That's what firing is for. "I only harmed the company and my coworkers and myself for a year, before they had built up enough of a case to fire me." That's a year they could have been paying someone competent, rather than working around your incompetence.
      - qualeed 1y ago
        I sympathize with your point, but if it takes you anywhere close to a year to figure out that someone faked their way into a position... that's bad.
  - EraYaN 1y ago
    Well be prepared for it to get MUCH MUCH worse, two AI agents battling it out trying to get each other to mess up. While all the human have no idea what the hell is happening.
- timeon 1y ago
  I'm afraid that thanks to this escalation hiring will be even more IRL-connection based.
csomar 1y ago
Some first/introductory interviews are now "powered" by AI. As in, the interviewee gets an AI bot that evaluates them. I'd not be surprised if this takes over and becomes standard.
- conartist6 1y ago
  Don't candidates also get a say? If a company asked me to jump through that hoop I'd have a simple one-word response. "No" If enough good candidates have that reaction, it will become a prestige marker for a company to not use AI screening to give them access to the best candidates
- pxc 1y ago
  For now, this is perhaps a blessing in disguise: it tells you that a company is all aboard the hype train and that leadership is seriously lacking in critical thinking and judgment. That can certainly save you from wasting more time with them. I really, really hope this does not become a "standard". Ugh.

Then you can't compete with other recruiters who do. "AI" will take your job!

Have you tried putting yourself in the perspective of the humans trying to find a job in a market that is turning over now and was already dystopian before AI was injected into a dystopian, hellish process of “putting on a tie and using a firm handshake” to apply into the void.

gwd 1y ago
This is so stupid. One of the main reasons it's become a dystopian, hellish process is because people cheat; proliferating cheating will make it even worse. Lying and cheating on a job interview isn't a victimless crime. You're harming the company and all your coworkers when they hire you into a job you're not qualified for; you're harming all the other actually qualified candidates that didn't get hired instead; you're harming yourself, when your salary comes from a company who rely on you to give something you can't give them.
- Nextgrid 1y ago
  > they hire you into a job you're not qualified for Interviewing has long been disconnected from the actual job. > who rely on you to give something you can't give them. That's what firing is for.
  - gwd 1y ago
    > That's what firing is for. "I only harmed the company and my coworkers and myself for a year, before they had built up enough of a case to fire me." That's a year they could have been paying someone competent, rather than working around your incompetence.
    - qualeed 1y ago
      I sympathize with your point, but if it takes you anywhere close to a year to figure out that someone faked their way into a position... that's bad.
- EraYaN 1y ago
  Well be prepared for it to get MUCH MUCH worse, two AI agents battling it out trying to get each other to mess up. While all the human have no idea what the hell is happening.
timeon 1y ago
I'm afraid that thanks to this escalation hiring will be even more IRL-connection based.

csomar 1y ago

Some first/introductory interviews are now "powered" by AI. As in, the interviewee gets an AI bot that evaluates them. I'd not be surprised if this takes over and becomes standard.

conartist6 1y ago
Don't candidates also get a say? If a company asked me to jump through that hoop I'd have a simple one-word response. "No" If enough good candidates have that reaction, it will become a prestige marker for a company to not use AI screening to give them access to the best candidates
pxc 1y ago
For now, this is perhaps a blessing in disguise: it tells you that a company is all aboard the hype train and that leadership is seriously lacking in critical thinking and judgment. That can certainly save you from wasting more time with them. I really, really hope this does not become a "standard". Ugh.